Pages

6 February 2009

EU-Ukraine-Russian Gas Crisis in Retrospective: It's Just the Beginning

Last month, a price dispute between Russia and Ukraine triggered the shutting of the transit route through which Europe receives about a fifth of all its natural gas. The gas crisis was largely interpreted as resulting from a breakdown in negotiations between Russia and Ukraine over how much the latter would pay for its own gas supplies, as well as questions about who would provide the technical gas to operate Ukraininian compressor stations.

Yet under the surface of the unprecedented dispute is a looming energy crisis. Russia produces about 22 percent of world gas supply, and is believed to hold 30 percent of the world’s remaining gas reserves. In a prescient analysis in late 2008, Dr. Pierre Noel, Acting Director of the Electricity Policy Forum at the University of Cambridge, warned that: “Over the next 15-20 years, Gazprom faces serious supply challenges, and the international gas market is likely to experience considerable tightening.” He noted that the coming decades could see Europe facing “a gas supply crunch, leading to stagnant or even declining consumption.” Although the Russian Gazprom controls “the world’s largest gas reserves, Gazprom will find it difficult to maintain its current supply levels.” Noel reports that production from the “super-giant” west Siberian gas fields, accounting for most of Gazprom’s production, “is now in steep decline.” Maintaining production depends on the development of new fields on the Yamal Peninsula in northwest Siberia, which are set to come online in 2010. Yet most of the European gas industry argue “this is highly unlikely”, putting 2015 as a more realistic date. But the problem goes deeper than this:

“In fact, Gazprom’s production is already insufficient to meet all the company’s commitments. It depends on two other sources of gas – ‘independent’ Russian producers and imports from Central Asia, especially Turkmenistan – to make up the shortfall. This ‘bridge’ is supposed to supply Gazprom’s needs until the Yamal fields come online. But there is uncertainty over whether Gazprom will be able to source sufficient volumes from Turkmenistan, while independent Russian producers have little incentive to increase their production in the absence of access to Gazprom’s transmission network, which would enable them to reach consumers directly. Moreover, domestic gas consumption in Russia is growing, driven by economic expansion and a gas-intensive electricity mix. So there is at least a risk that Gazprom’s ‘bridge’ to Yamal could collapse. Industry assessments vary from a tight but manageable supply situation to an impending crisis.”

This background places in sharp focus the EU-Ukraine-Russia gas crisis. Indeed, just before the gas crisis Ukraine had signed a strategic accord with the US in December 2008, calling for the establishment of a US diplomatic post in Crimea where Russia’s Black Sea Fleet is based, as well as for “enhanced cooperation” in defence, security, trade and "energy security."

The incident must be understood as signifying the eruption of a major fault-line in future EU-US-Russian geopolitical contestation in the region for claims over access to increasingly scarce hydrocarbon resources. An analysis of data from the BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2008 by the open source intelligence firm Sanders Research Associates, found that Russian natural gas could well have already peaked in 2006, suggesting that the prolongation of delays in bringing online the new Russian gas fields could imply an EU gas supply crunch as early as 2015.

The gas crisis should be understood as a sign of things to come if Europe doesn't act to overcome its over-dependence on hydrocarbon energy sources. Instead we have deeply misinformed and speculative ventures to focus on nuclear power. Even Sweden, which had once declared its intent to become the world's first oil-free economy, is now scrapping its plans to invest in renewable energy technologies to build costly nuclear plants. The combination of continued fossil-fuel dependence mingled with the nuclearization of Western societies doesn't bode well, neither for global warming, long-term energy security, nor for public safety and issues of proliferation.

1 comment:

Plus we should remember two important facts. At first, Ukraine will suffer losses because the price for using Ukranian gas pipe didn’t grow proportionally to the Rusiian gas price. Let’s make a simple calculation. Russia pays Ukraine $1,7 for transporting 1000 cubic meters of gas on 100 km. Average distance which is passed by Russian gas by our pipe aproximately 1100 km. Russia transports to Europe at least 110 milliards cubic meters of gas annually. So Ukraine gains about $2 milliards anually. And the lowest European price is $4 per 100 kilometers, so we could gain about $4,7 milliards. Accordingly we can say that Timoshenko complimented Putin about $2,7 milliards.

How much gas could be purchased by these? 10-12 milliards of cubic meters at least. Timoshenko grants Putin more than the 50% of annual gas necessity of Ukraine. Receiving the increasing of prices and Ukraine’s obligation to buy technical gas by own cost, though at favourable prices. http://ua-ru-news.blogspot.com/2009/01/new-price-on-russian-gas.html

Acclaim

"International security analyst and consultant who has spent much time looking at how environmental risks and terrorism threaten our eco-security and well-being." -- The Evening Standard's 1000 most influential Londoners 2014

"Yes, yes, I know he is one of Them. But they often know things that we don’t – particularly about what we are up to" -- Gore Vidal, The Observer

"Ahmed is that rare breed of journalist who finds stories everyone else either misses or chooses to overlook; he regularly joins up the dots in a global system of corporate pillage... a voice from the genuine left, and one too independent to control" -- Jonathan Cook, former Guardian columnist and foreign desk editor

"If you still need something to worry about, how about a grand conflagration of climate, financial, energy, food, and civil-liberties crises, which might destroy the world as we know it before the century is out?... Forceful and well sourced" -- Steven Poole, The Guardian

"Lucid and persuasive account of how our security mandarins talked themselves into believing we could make quiet, backroom deals with terrorists" -- Bryan Appleyard, Sunday Times

"Disturbing and clearly evidenced... Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed traces the unholy games played with Islamist terrorists by the US, and through acquiescence by the UK, flirting with them when it suited and then turning against them" -- Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, The Independent

"Respected terror analyst Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed pulls apart the official narrative of 7/7, pointing out its gaps and contradictions... The authorities seem to be unable to answer many of the most basic questions about the 7/7 bombings ... it has taken a study by an academic outsider, Ahmed, to assess the extent of the bombers’ international terrorist connections." -- Editorial, Independent on Sunday

"One of the most illuminating voices in the British media" -- Rob Hopkins, founder, Transition Towns movement

"Nafeez Ahmed’s understanding of the post 9/11 power game, its lies, illusions and dangers, is no less than brilliant. Everyone should read this wise and powerfully illuminating book." -- John Pilger, Emmy and BAFTA award-winning journalist

"I wish every American who still believes in the good intentions of our government would read this book. Drawing upon his impressive research into recent history, Nafeez Ahmed skilfully exposes the real motives behind the 'war on terrorism' and the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq." -- Howard Zinn

"Nafeez Ahmed demonstrates brilliantly that the war on freedom is inseparable from the war on truth." -- Vandana Shiva

"As carefully laid out and sourced as one could want... I find the author's argument that the US, the UK, and France, among others, have been actively using terrorists, nurturing terrorists, as part of a geopolitical and economic strategy, and that in their naiveté they nurtured a force they cannot control today, to be completely credible" -- Robert D. Steele, founding Deputy Director, US Marine Corps Intelligence Command

"An impressive study of key crises confronting our civilization... a unique attempt to demonstrate their systematic interconnections... Ahmed is very deliberately a wide-ranging, interdisciplinary scholar... Throughout, [he] draws convincingly and commandingly on a number of fields, including climate sciences, geology, monetary and financial economics, and systems theory, among many others" -- Marx & Philosophy Review of Books

"A powerful and convincing account of how our civilization is threatened by a system of crises... [Ahmed] clearly and directly explains that, while the impact of each of these crises is great, we can only understand their true impact and how to potentially solve or mitigate them as a system" -- The Oil Drum (Institute for the Study of Energy and Our Future)

About this blog

"posits that in every culture and society there are facts which tend to be suppressed collectively, because of the social and psychological costs of not doing so."

Deep political analysis digs

"beneath public formulations of policy issues to the bureaucratic, economic, and ultimately covert and criminal activities which underlie them."

(Peter Dale Scott, University of California, Berkeley)

On this blog, I engage in deep political analysis in the context of the Crisis of Civilization – the convergence and escalation of environmental degradation, species extinctions, climate change, energy depletion, food crisis, water shortages, economic/financial instability, inequality/poverty, religious/political extremism, moral confusion, mental illness, and finally, philosophical/epistemological vacuity. As these crises systemically converge and accelerate, Civilization continues to respond largely with denial, guaranteeing a business-as-usual trajectory toward worst case scenarios. The only viable alternative is to respond through direct confrontation with that which has been suppressed.